1. No category

Educational Reform in
Virginia: Blueprint for the
Future of Public Education
“Creating Virginia’s Future in Public Education”
K-12 Public Education Strategic Plan
PRESENTED: NOVEMBER 17, 2011
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS
1 Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………
3
Foreword………………………………………………………………
5
Mission, Officers, Board, Legislative Committee, Staff ………….…
6
Blueprint Focus Committees …………………………………………
7
Goal 1:Curriculum/Readiness…………………………...……………
8
Goal, Objectives, Strategies…………..................……………
8
Rationale………………………………………………………
9
Goal 2:Assessment………………………........................……………
10
Goal, Objectives, Strategies…………..................……………
10
Rationale………………………………………………………
10
Goal 3:Instructional Delivery………………...................……………
12
Goal, Objectives, Strategies…………..................……………
12
Rationale………………………………………………………
13
Goal 4:Human Capital………………………..................……………
14
Goal, Objectives, Strategies…………..................……………
14
Rationale………………………………………………………
15
Goal 5:State’s Role in Funding Public Education……….……………
17
Goal, Objectives, Strategies…………...................……………
17
Rationale………………………………………………………
18
Appendix A: Supporting Research………….....................……………
22
Curriculum/Readiness…………………………...……………
23
Assessment………………………........................……………
26
Instructional Delivery………………...................……………
29
Human Capital………………………..................……….……
37
State’s Role in Funding Public Education……….……………
41
2 Executive Summary
The Virginia Association of School Superintendents (VASS) is a professional organization
dedicated to the mission of providing leadership and advocacy for public school education
throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. The “Blueprint for the Future of Public Education”
is a pro-active education reform plan developed by VASS to:
•
•
•
•
•
create a public education system that better prepares Virginia’s students for success in
globally competitive jobs and in higher education;
frame the debate on education issues and the funding necessary to both sustain and
increase the accomplishments that have been made;
focus the attention of policymakers on what will make a difference in student
achievement;
establish and maintain direction for public education; and,
galvanize support of stakeholders who will enable continuous forward momentum for
improvement in the quality of public education.
The “Blueprint” contains five key areas of strategic focus:
1. Prepare all students to be college and career ready (Curriculum/Readiness)
2. Measure student progress and achievement through a variety of assessments not limited
to standardized, multiple choice tests (Assessment)
3. Use evidence-based teaching and learning models that meet individual needs of diverse
students (Instructional Delivery)
4. Recruit, develop, and maintain effective and technically-proficient teachers,
administrators, and classified staff (Human Capital)
5. Ensure the Commonwealth meets its financial responsibility in providing public
education and promoting economic development (State’s Role in Funding Public
Education)
“The economic vitality, democratic health and future of our communities, state, and nation
depend upon the capacity of today’s students to become tomorrow’s extraordinary leaders, high
performance workforce, and contributing citizens.”
Goal 1: Prepare all students to be college and career ready (Curriculum/Readiness)
Key Strategies
•
•
•
Integrate rigorous content with performance competencies
Use multiple measures to assess students’ performance on contemporary college and
career readiness standards
Ensure all students experience grade-appropriate career development experiences
“The benefits of established standards and criterion-referenced assessments (SOL tests) as a
means to raise student achievement in Virginia have been significant but are no longer
sufficient.”
Goal 2: Measure student progress and achievement through a variety of assessments not
limited to standardized, multiple choice tests (Assessment)
3 Key Strategies
•
•
•
Identify and implement a variety of assessments to measure student growth that may
include case analyses, problem-based projects, collaborative presentation, and
community review of work
Identify and secure state-wide pricing for assessments that measure student growth
Provide web-based tool for sharing assessments, rubrics, and curriculum materials
“Virginia’s students are entitled to high quality educational services that develop students’ core
academic skills, critical-thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, communication, and
technology skills (21st century learning).”
Goal 3: Use evidence-based teaching and learning models that meet individual needs of
diverse students (Instructional Delivery)
Key Strategies
•
•
•
•
Secure funding and access to virtual curriculum
Ensure use of evidence-based high-yield teaching and learning strategies
Remove calendar and schedule barriers related to the start of school and clock hour
requirements to provide flexibility in teaching and learning
Implement a tiered instructional model in mathematics and reading utilizing formative
assessment and appropriate interventions
“The core of education is teaching and learning, and the teaching-learning connection works
best when school divisions have effective teachers working with every student every day.”
Goal 4: Recruit, develop, and maintain effective and technically-proficient teachers,
administrators, and classified staff (Human Capital)
Key Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
Improve competitiveness of salary and benefits
Develop and implement incentive programs
Improve timeliness of student achievement and other performance indicators for use in
evaluation of teacher effectiveness
Extend probationary period for teachers
Support evidence-based, locally-developed differentiated compensation models
“Localities already shoulder a much larger portion of K-12 expenditures than intended by state
policy.”
Goal 5: Ensure the Commonwealth meets its financial responsibility in providing public
education and promoting economic development (State’s Role in Funding Public
Education)
Key Strategies
•
•
•
Re-examine state mandates and cost burden to localities, eliminating unfunded mandates
Improve funding disparity between localities
Ensure financial solvency of the Virginia Retirement System
4 Foreword
Founded in 1885, VASS has provided educational leadership in Virginia for more than a century
and will continue to be a prominent leader on issues that affect educators across the
Commonwealth. VASS membership is comprised of over 300 educational leaders, including
school division superintendents from all regions of Virginia. These members are compelled by a
common mission and a sense of urgency to educate each young person in the Commonwealth so
that our communities, state, and nation will continue to thrive. This Blueprint for the Future of
Public Education is a pro-active education reform plan developed by VASS which:





projects far into the future to create a public education system that better prepares
Virginia’s students for success in globally competitive jobs and in higher education;
frames the debate on education issues and the funding necessary to both sustain and
increase the accomplishments that have been made;
focuses the attention of policymakers on what will make a difference in student
achievement;
establishes and maintains direction for public education; and
galvanizes support of stakeholders who will enable continuous forward momentum for
improvement in the quality of public education
The Blueprint for the Future of Public Education outlines Goals, Objectives, Strategies and
Rationale/Research for five key areas of strategic focus:
Curriculum/Readiness
Assessment
Instructional Delivery
Human Capital
State’s Role in Funding Public Education
VASS members stand ready to work collaboratively with other entities across the
Commonwealth to achieve the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies contained herein and “create
Virginia’s future in public education.”
5 Mission
The Virginia Association of School Superintendents (VASS) is a professional organization
dedicated to the mission of providing leadership and advocacy for public school education
throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Officers
President – Pamela Moran, Albemarle County
President-Elect – Howard (Ben) Kiser, Gloucester County
Secretary/Treasurer – Patrick J. Russo, Henrico County
Board of Directors
Joseph O. Cox, Colonial Heights City
Ashby Kilgore, Newport News City
Clint Staples, Northumberland County
Gail Pope, Manassas City
Rosa Atkins, Charlottesville City
H. Alan Seibert, Salem City
Elizabeth Thomas, Grayson County
James Thornton, Mecklenburg County
Legislative Committee
Bob Grimesey, Chair, Orange County
David Clark, Dinwiddie County
Jennifer Parish, Poquoson City
Jeffrey Smith, Town of West Point
Brian Ratliff, Amherst County
Roger Morris, Patrick County
Terry Arbogast, Giles County
David Smith, Prince Edward County
Staff
Executive Director - Alfred R. Butler, IV
Associate Executive Director – J. Andrew Stamp
Administrative Assistant – Sybil S. Roberts
Legislative Liaison – Thomas W.D. Smith
Educational Services Review Consultant – Bonny B. Wilson
Project Coordinator – Robert C. McCracken
6 VASS Blueprint Focus Area Committees
Curriculum/Readiness:
Ashby Kilgore, Chair and Superintendent of Newport News City Schools
Jennifer Parish, Superintendent of Poquoson Schools
Jeffrey O. Smith, Superintendent of West Point Schools
Assessment:
Gail Pope, Chair and Superintendent of Manassas City Schools
James G. Merrill, Superintendent of Virginia Beach City Schools
Marcus J. Newsome, Superintendent of Chesterfield County Schools
Patrick J. Russo, VASS Secretary/Treasurer and Superintendent of Henrico County Schools
H. Alan Seibert, VASS Board member and Superintendent of Salem City Schools
Instructional Delivery:
Howard (Ben) Kiser, Chair, VASS President-elect, and Superintendent of Gloucester County Schools
Roger Collins, Superintendent of Nelson County Schools
Gregory N. Killough, Superintendent of Caroline County Schools
Jan Rozzelle, Executive Director, School - University Research Network, College of William & Mary
Eric Williams, Superintendent of York County Schools
Human Capital:
David C. Jeck, Chair and Superintendent of Greene County Schools
Robert T. Becker, Jr., Superintendent of Pulaski County Schools
William (Bruce) Benson, Superintendent of Accomack County Schools
B.J. Brewer, Superintendent of Amelia County Schools
C. Bruce McDade, Superintendent of Manassas Park Schools
J. Andrew Stamp, VASS Associate Executive Director
State’s Role in Funding Public Education:
Elizabeth Thomas, Chair, VASS Board member, and Superintendent of Grayson County Schools
Robin G. Crowder, Superintendent of Waynesboro City Schools
Sue B. Davis, Superintendent of Danville City Schools
Matthew J. Eberhardt, Superintendent of Madison County Schools
Lorraine S. Lange, Superintendent of Roanoke County Schools
Michael M. Robinson, Superintendent of Smyth County Schools
J. Andrew Stamp, VASS Associate Executive Director
Strategic Planning Facilitators
William B. Benson, Superintendent of Accomack County Schools
Melissa H. Anderson, Systems Coordinator, Albemarle County Schools
7 Curriculum/Readiness
Goal
All Virginia students will graduate college and career ready.
Objectives and Strategies
In our roles as VASS members and superintendents of school divisions across all regions of
Virginia, we believe it is imperative that Virginia develop and commit to a shared vision of the
knowledge and skills that students need to know and demonstrate so as to become successful
learners, employees, and citizens in the 21st century. Standards, assessments, curriculum,
instruction, professional development must be aligned to produce a support system that produces
college and career readiness outcomes for today’s students.
Objective 1: College and career readiness standards that align with 21st century learning
standards will be developed for use by all Virginia school divisions. Additionally, an
accountability system that assesses learners’ performance on these standards will be developed
and piloted.
Strategy 1A: Define and develop an integrated model of rigorous content and core
performance competencies that combines Virginia’s excellent content standards and
international/21st century performance standards.
Strategy 1B: Develop and pilot an accountability system that assesses learners’
performance on college and career readiness standards that benchmark to 21st century
learning/international standards.
Objective 2: Students will demonstrate college and career readiness as evidenced by the
accountability system aligned with the college and career readiness standards.
Strategy 2A: Implement an accountability system that assesses learners’ performance on
college and career readiness standards that benchmark to 21st century learning/
international standards.
Strategy 2B: Create and implement an approach to develop and share across Virginia’s
school’s curriculum, pedagogies, formative assessments and teacher and leader
development programs that support implementation of international/21st century
performance standards for learners.
Strategy 2C: Create and implement an integrated approach to expose all K-12 students to
grade-appropriate career development experiences.
8 Rationale
Since the early 1990’s, the hyper-development of technology, increased world-wide focus on
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics integration (STEM), the developing markets
of Europe and the emerging markets of Asia and South America, the outsourcing of U.S.
services, and the relocation of American businesses, have combined to change the focus of
American public education. It is no longer sufficient for students to demonstrate competence on
standardized tests that measure their ability to succeed in a local economy; it has become
paramount for American students to acquire the knowledge and skills that will enable them to
successfully enter college, the workforce, and compete across the world.
Our young people in today’s schools must be able to compete within a workforce that extends
well beyond the borders of the United States and collaborate to solve global problems that exist
without national boundaries. According to a Weldon Cooper Center paper (Carter and Gunter,
2010) workplace skills considered “much more important now” than two years ago include
adaptability, flexibility, critical thinking, problem solving, and information technology
application.
As VASS members, we are compelled by our common mission and a sense of urgency to
educate each young person in the Commonwealth so that our communities, state and nation
continue to thrive.
As VASS members, we believe:

All learners in our schools today must graduate college ready, career ready, and
citizenship ready so they successfully can work in a global workforce and live as
productive citizens in today’s world.

The economic vitality, democratic health and future of our communities, state, and nation
depend upon the capacity of today’s students to become tomorrow’s extraordinary
leaders, high performance workforce, and contributing citizens.

Virginia’s Standards of Learning Program has created a strong foundation for setting
rigorous expectations of what all of our young people can achieve. Standards of Learning
assessments are an important part of assessing student achievement. However, these
should not be the only assessments. Our educators have risen to the challenge of
educating Virginia’s young people to these high standards resulting in 98% of our
schools meeting full accreditation, an increase of 96% since 1998. There is a need for a
new accountability system in Virginia.

To move our young people forward from content competence to performance excellence,
we must now develop and assess using 21st century/international benchmarks that go well
beyond the expectations of current standards.
9 Assessment
Goal
School divisions will use multiple and balanced assessments to measure student growth and
achievement.
Objectives and Strategies
Objective 1: School divisions will have the flexibility to measure student progress and
achievement throughout the year using multiple, authentic assessments.
Strategy 1A: Identify and promote the use of balanced assessments which would include the
Standards of Learning (SOL) tests; College and Work Readiness Assessment (CWRA);
student portfolios; problem-based projects; collaborative presentations; and community
review of student work.
Strategy 1B: Provide a state developed and supported portal so that school divisions can
share assessments, rubrics, and curriculum materials.
Strategy 1C: Identify and secure state-wide pricing for assessments that measure student
growth.
Strategy 1D: Provide state supported access to statistical analysis and reporting tools.
Strategy 1E: Allow for appropriate assessments that measure growth of English Language
Learners.
Strategy 1F: Reduce the role of criterion-referenced assessment.
Rationale
In the late 1990’s, the Commonwealth of Virginia was a pioneer in the standards-based
accountability movement. The benefits of established standards and criterion-referenced
assessments (SOL tests) as a means to raise student achievement in Virginia have been
significant but are no longer sufficient. If the Commonwealth’s decade-old accountability model
is left unchanged, we will continue to have an incomplete picture of student learning. VASS
members support the development of a next generation balanced accountability system that
includes multiple valid student performance indicators including growth, achievement, and
career readiness.
10 All parents want to know how much their child has progressed in a given year or over the term of
a specific course. Teachers long to celebrate how far and how fast students in their charge have
learned. Reporting student proficiency on one-time summative assessments can accomplish
neither. While we will always need to know how students are performing relative to a standard,
an additional set of tools and techniques is necessary for use to reliably measure and report
student growth.
11 Instructional Delivery
Goal
Virginia’s students will benefit from instructional delivery models supported by evidence-based
research that are flexible enough to accommodate diverse learners and broad enough to
maximize students’ learning styles.
Objectives and Strategies
Objective 1: Virtual curricula will be available for students.
Strategy 1A: Provide funding to support virtual programs in the form of materials,
hardware, software, space, and personnel to school divisions in order that all schools,
regardless of size, can offer instructional alternatives to students.
Objective 2: Teachers’ and school leaders’ knowledge and practice of evidence-based high yield
strategies in classrooms will be enhanced through high-quality professional development
programs.
Strategy 2A: Fund professional development opportunities for teachers to expand and
improve their knowledge of evidence-based instructional strategies and provide time for
teachers to practice, self-reflect, and collaborate with peers and school leaders.
Objective 3: School leaders will design effective learning schedules to improve student and
teacher performance, and improve the use of time through a more flexible school schedule.
Strategy 3A: Provide flexibility for school divisions to start school before Labor Day and
support to extend the school year to meet individual student needs.
Strategy 3B: Support competency-based instructional models.
Objective 4: The tiered instructional model for serving children in reading and mathematics in
grades K-12 will be supported and expanded in all school divisions. This intervention model
focuses on core curriculum and tiered interventions by using formative assessments throughout
the year that guide instruction.
Strategy 4A: Increase professional development for localities to implement and expand
the tiered instructional model methodology. Provide improved funding for reading and
math specialists to support classroom teachers in providing tiered intervention as part of
the tiered instructional model delivery structure.
12 Rationale
Virginia’s students are entitled to high quality educational services that develop students’ core
academic skills, critical-thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, communication, and
technology skills (21st century learning). Upon completion of Virginia’s K-12 requirements,
students will be prepared for further education (including technical education) and employment.
Having Virginia’s students become lifelong learners who are capable of a successful transition
into post secondary education, an evolving workforce in the 21st century, and responsible
citizenship will require a focus on supporting evidence-based practices pertaining to instructional
delivery.
A strong core curriculum and quality teachers are necessary to accomplish the above statement.
Targeted school-based professional development to help teachers improve their instructional
delivery, quality formative assessments that guide teachers’ instructional delivery, and
appropriate time and resources at all grade levels to support instructional delivery with
intervention services are necessities. Instruction in public schools should be flexible enough to
accommodate diverse learners in classrooms and broad enough to provide varied opportunities to
maximize students’ learning styles.
Improved compensation helps schools attract the best teachers, professional development helps
good teachers to become better teachers, and support for school leaders helps to retain the best
teachers and improve schools’ performance.
Ample research exists and identifies effective classroom practices that have a high probability of
improving student performance as described in John Hattie’s book, Visible Learning, A Synthesis
of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (2009). Helping teachers to increase use
and improve delivery of these valid instructional strategies represents an essential priority to
improving student performance. These instructional strategies should be emphasized in school
improvement plans, in professional development programs to help teachers improve their craft,
and in programs that help school leaders become better instructional leaders. Much is known
today about the science of teaching and learning; however translating that science into
legislation, policy, and practice supported by adequate resources represents a significant
challenge. Time, effort and resources should be dedicated to implementing those instructional
strategies that will work to improve teaching and learning in Virginia’s public schools.
13 Human Capital
Goal
Develop Virginia’s human capital for the provision of high-quality 21st century public education.
Objectives and Strategies
Objective 1: Improve recruitment and retention of teachers, administrators, and classified staff
in Virginia.
Strategy 1A: Increase salaries and benefits of all teachers, administrators,
superintendents and classified staff so that Virginia will be in the top of its competitive
market and in the top 10% in the nation.
Strategy 1B: Strengthen Virginia Retirement System (VRS) as a recruitment incentive by
supporting a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) study to
determine if the General Assembly is complying with its Constitutional obligation of
funding the VRS using methods which are consistent with generally accepted actuarial
principals; request study to offer a methodology for ensuring adherence to this
Constitutional obligation.
Strategy 1C: Provide programs and incentives to encourage high school students to
become teachers (e.g. tuition stipends/loan forgiveness, 5-yr teaching commitment,
teacher cadet programs), and support efforts to increase enrollment in and completion of
teacher education programs within colleges and universities.
Strategy 1D: Support locally developed evidence-based differentiated compensation
models.
Objective 2: Improve teacher, administrator, and classified staff performance.
Strategy 2A: Recommend that Board of Education/Department of Education provide
assistance during implementation of a fair and uniform evaluation system that provides
for timely reporting of student achievement data and other performance indicators to be
used as the basis for teacher and administrator evaluation.
Strategy 2B: Pass legislation providing for a five year probation period for first-time
teachers and providing a two year probation period for teachers who have continuing
contract status but transfer to a new school division.
14 Strategy 2C: Review current grievance procedures, make recommendations for
improvement, and oppose legislation that would add additional grievance actions,
reprimands or other criticism placed in personnel files, the contents of any evaluation,
transfer within the school division and reduction in force within the school division.
Objective 3: Build local and state capacity to provide professional development support for
teachers, administrators, and classified staff.
Strategy 3A: Provide funding for teacher, administrator and classified staff professional
development.
Strategy 3B: Create virtual resources for professional development to support
instructional delivery/assessment practices.
Strategy 3C: Emphasize professional development using instructional technology to
improve student achievement.
Rationale
According to a human capital management study out of the Aspen Institute, 1 research indicates
that principals’ and teachers’ performance has more effect on student achievement than any other
factor, 2 3 and that teachers’ effectiveness in increasing student performance varies widely. The
variance in teacher effectiveness is largely predicated on poor recruitment systems, overly broad
application of professional development, and a lack of incentives for retention.4 As such, we
oppose state promotion and funding of pay for performance models that are not supported by
research, are unfair and inequitable, and whose performance evaluations are based on irrelevant
and invalid student growth models.
The core of education is teaching and learning, and the teaching-learning connection works best
when school divisions’ have effective teachers working with every student every day. The
quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. Teachers have the
challenging task of meeting the educational needs of a diverse student population, and
compensation, support, professional development and first-rate evaluation systems are necessary
to sustain and improve their efforts.
1
Wurtzel, J. & Curtis, R. (2008) Human Capital Framework for K-12 Urban Education: Organizing for Success. The Aspen
Institute. 1.
2
Chavez, S. (2006). An audit of human capital. School Administrator, 63(4), 42-44.
3
Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2008). Creating excellent and equitable schools. Educational Leadership, 65(8),
14-21.
4
Petress, K. (2007). How We Can Attract and Retain Quality Teachers. Education, Vol. 128.
15 In order to provide the highest quality public education that prepares Virginia’s students for
success in their careers and post-secondary education, school divisions must have the highest
quality staff available. Reform efforts should strive to increase the quantity, quality and capacity
of educators and administrators as a means to improve student achievement and enhance
professional growth. In order to develop Virginia’s human capital for this task, incentives,
support systems, and policies should be developed to encourage and maintain high performance
among teachers, administrators and classified staff. Immediate and long-term objectives should
be to improve recruitment, retention, performance, and professional development so that current
and future Virginia educators and support staff can attain their greatest potentials.
16 State’s Role in Funding Public Education
Goal
Increase funding for public education to ensure that the state meets its responsibility to provide
public education as a core function of state government and to promote economic development
in Virginia.
Objectives and Strategies
Objective 1: Require the state to pay its full share for the quality of public education that it
requires in the SOQ.
Strategy 1A: Review and update the SOQ to ensure that it reflects the actual costs of
providing quality education.
Strategy 1B: Enact a re-benchmarking policy that does not exclude all federal funds.
Strategy 1C: Use the current state budget categories and redefine existing categories
including “Administration and Attendance,” to better distinguish school-level leadership
and recognize its direct impact on learning.
Strategy 1D: Re-examine state mandates and resulting cost burdens placed on local
school divisions; eliminate unfunded mandates.
Objective 2: Improve the funding formula so that it further reduces the disparity between
wealthy and poor districts.
Strategy 2A: Conduct a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) Study
to evaluate state funding disparities and distribution.
Objective 3: Protect Virginia Retirement System (VRS) to make it a healthy defined benefit
program and restore it to its fully funded status.
Strategy 3A: Avoid use of VRS funds to offset proposed expenditures in other areas.
Strategy 3B: Provide VRS funding to more accurately reflect the VRS Board’s
recommended actuarial rate.
Strategy 3C: Consider proposals that adequately fund VRS.
Objective 4: Require that the state provide multiple funding sources for school construction.
Strategy 4A: Reinstate the Literary Loan Program with increases from $7.5 million to
$12 million for each approved project.
17 Strategy 4B: Provide direct state aid funding for school maintenance and construction
projects.
Strategy 4C: Establish debt service opportunities for local education agencies to be
provided by the state.
Strategy 4D: Explore and establish new state supported and initiated sources for school
construction.
Objective 5: Require local revenue sharing agreements to carry over money in excess of
required local effort.
Objective 6: Conduct a Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) Study to
investigate the impact, performance, and effectiveness of fiscally independent school boards.
Objective 7: Require incentive programs to become part of SOQ (e.g. At-Risk programs, K-12
programs, etc.)
Rationale
The good news is that Virginia’s economy is improving. State tax revenues are beginning to
grow again after an unprecedented two fiscal years of general fund (GF) revenue declines. The
state now expects about six percent revenue growth in fiscal year 2011 GF (tax policy adjusted)
and FY 2012. The bad news is that federal stimulus funding for K-12 is ending and local
revenues continue to stagnate along with the real estate market. According to a recent House
Appropriations Committee (HAC) survey report of FY 2010 and FY 2011 school division
budgets, 59% percent of local school divisions received the same or less local funding in FY
2011 as in FY 2010.5 Expect pressure on local revenues to continue over the next several years
as the housing market continues to struggle. In other words, the state is in the best position to
increase its responsibilities for K-12 funding.
Localities already shoulder a much larger portion of K-12 expenditures than intended by state
policy. While the Commonwealth may provide funding for its share of the Standards of Quality,
this does not reflect the full cost of education in Virginia. The Commonwealth’s funding formula
should reflect the actual cost of providing quality education. The Virginia Department of
Education reported that localities had to budget $3.1 billion in FY 2011 above their state required
local effort (or 22 percent of all K-12 spending) to maintain real world school systems.6 DOE
calculated that the median school division budgeted 66% more than required by the state in FY
2011, and in total, school divisions as a whole spent nearly twice the amount required by the
state. According to the DOE’s 2007 report on the Status of Required Local Effort in Support of
5
http://hac.virginia.gov/committee/files/2010/11-16-10/Public_Education_Update.pdf
6
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/RD212011/$file/RD21.pdf
18 the Standards of Quality, only 40 percent of school funding in Virginia comes from the state,
which is significantly below the national average of 47 percent.
It is now the state’s turn to budget meaningful increases for K-12. While revenues increased
significantly over the original 2010-12 budget, the state did little in the 2011 Session to restore
GF K-12 funding that was reduced $900 million from FY 2009 to FY 2011.7 The Governor
and General Assembly increased biennial K-12 spending by only $22 million out of $615 million
in additional GF available. Instead, the state spent its additional GF resources on Medicaid,
mental health programs, partial restoration of police department and sheriff’s office funding,
higher education, restoring VRS contributions, VITA computer contract increases, water quality
programs, transportation, and rainy day fund reserves. The HAC report also summarized longterm K-12 policy changes accompanying the state spending reductions:
• Established a funding cap ratio of 1 support position per 4 instructional-based SOQ
positions
• Increased the federal revenue “deduct” from 29% to 38%
• Changed the funding methodology for health care premiums to actual participation rates
• Eliminated non-personnel inflation rate adjustments
• Eliminated or adjusted benefits, machinery & equipment, and other support costs from
SOQ calculations
As a result, in FY 2012 local school divisions are continuing to close schools, increase class
sizes, consolidate programs, reduce employee benefits, and shed personnel. The HAC survey
report revealed the numerous budget reduction actions school divisions took in FY 2010 and FY
2011 to balance their budgets, including reductions in compensation and benefits, specific
instructional-based and elective programs, textbooks, maintenance and equipment programs,
transportation, and other non-personnel budget savings actions. In addition, 78 school divisions
reported increasing class sizes as a cost-savings approach.
There is only one viable alternative to a continuing round of K-12 budget reductions – additional
state support. As additional state revenues become available, the state needs to significantly
increase its priority for restoring its K-12 funding programs. State aid for public education has
declined from 35 percent of the GF budget in FY 2009 to under 30 percent in FY 2012 (see
chart). Reversing this trend should start with the re-benchmarking process for the 2012-14
biennium. First, the Governor should propose a re-benchmarking policy that captures
federal stimulus funds in the FY 2010 spending base. The $584 million in ARRA federal funds
were clearly used in FY 2010 as a temporary substitute for state general funds. ARRA federal
funds should be treated as state general funds for re-benchmarking purposes.
7
GF Direct Aid to Public Education - FY 2009: $5.6 B; FY 2011: $4.7 B
19 Second, the state should re-think some of its recently enacted long-term policies used to
justify spending reductions over the last several years. For example, there is no documented
basis for the policy of limiting support staff to 1 support position per 4 teachers. A more
thoroughly reasoned standard for support positions should be adopted. If not, then the state
should return to using the prevailing cost methodology for support positions. The state should
reverse its policy of eliminating non-personnel inflation adjustments. Why shouldn’t the state
assist school divisions in paying for higher energy and transportation costs? Basing the state
payment for fuel and utilities based on 2009 costs is unrealistic given the increases in the prices
of these commodities. Machinery and equipment replacement is also a necessary cost of
education and the state should share in these costs.
Third, all the Standards of Quality revisions as proposed by the State Board of Education
should be funded by the state:
• A full-time principal for each elementary school
• A full-time assistant principal for every 400 students in the school
• One reading specialist for every 1,000 students in K-12
• One mathematics specialist for every 1,000 students in K-8
• A data manager-test coordinator for every 1,000 students in K-12
• Instructional positions for students who are blind or vision impaired
• Reducing speech-language pathologist caseloads from 68 to 60
Fourth, re-examine state mandates and the resulting cost burdens placed on local school
divisions. Consider providing flexibility to school divisions for those state mandates that exceed
federal requirements without adequate state funding, such as special education.
Finally, the state should increase funding for at-risk student education programs and
consider including these programs in the Standards of Quality (SOQ) – particularly since
there is a new state high school graduation mandate, beginning with accreditation ratings for FY
2012, that high schools must earn a minimum of 85 points on the graduation and completion
index for full accreditation. Achieving this mandate will require funding, especially for those
schools with higher numbers of at-risk students and lower graduation rates. For example, a
recent VA Department of Education presentation noted if the new accreditation standards were
applied to the Virginia on-time graduation rate for 2008-2009, it may have resulted in the
following accreditation ratings8:
•
Thirty six divisions would have had all of their high schools Fully Accredited
8
www.doe.virginia.gov/support/.../superintendent_presentation_1.ppt
20 •
Forty five divisions would have had high schools Provisionally Accredited
•
Fifty divisions would have had high schools Accredited with Warning
To achieve these new graduation standards, low-graduation school districts will need improved
early-warning and intervention systems, pro-active K-12 programs, redesigned feeder elementary
and middle schools, and mentors working with every 15-20 off-track student. This will require
excellent teachers, principals, and caring adults in schools, including counselors and graduation
coaches to create a college-going culture. Of course, this requires adequate sources of funding in
already fiscally-stressed localities.
In conclusion, the state is the only level of government that will have significant additional
revenues available near term for restoring K-12 public education funding. The federal
government is reducing its budget due to huge deficits, and local government is hamstrung from
the continuing real estate recession. Besides mandating improved high school graduation rates,
the state has added on other requirements as well, such as the requirement to have a financial
literacy course. The combined effect of changes over the last several years in the Standards of
Accreditation and Standards of Learning are cumulative and real. Unfortunately, the state has not
recognized its share of these additional costs through changes in the Standards of Quality, but
instead has decreased funding even in the wake of additional requirements.
Of course, education is a critical component for Virginia’s economic development. As the
Council on Virginia’s Future has noted, “the relationship between education and economic
prosperity has strengthened over the last few decades as technology and innovation play
increasingly important roles in competitiveness and growth.”9 The Council then documented the
huge differences in median income between high school dropouts and college graduates. CNBC
again just ranked Virginia for 2011 as “America’s Top State for Business”. One of the
categories it cited for Virginia’s business success was its K-12 and higher education system. For
Virginia to continue to be a world-class business destination, it will need to continue to have a
world class education system.
Can Virginian’s afford a world class
education system? The answer is
“Yes.” According to the 2010 study by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis and
NEA Research, Virginia ranks 40th
among the 50 states and Washington,
D.C. in current expenditures for public
K-12 schools per $1,000 of personal
income for 2008 (statistic provided by
VEA).
9
http://future.virginia.gov/docs/IssueInsights/Insight5-EdAttainmentVA.pdf
21 Appendix A: Supporting Research
22 Curriculum/Readiness Research
Darling-Hammond, L., & Wentworth, L. (2010). Benchmarking learning systems: Student
performance assessment in international context. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford
Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from:
http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/benchmarking-learning-systems.pdf
High-performing nations integrate curriculum, instruction, and assessment to improve both
teaching and learning. As a large and increasing part of their examination systems, they use
open-ended performance tasks and school-based assessments to give students opportunities to
develop 21st century skills: The abilities to find and organize information to solve problems,
frame and conduct investigations, analyze and synthesize data, and apply learning to new
situations. This paper illustrates how several nations integrate these assessments into the
curriculum to create stronger learning for both students and teachers, resulting in higher and
more equitable achievement.
Benchmarking College and Career Readiness Standards to 21st Century
Learning/International Standards
We did not find research related to benchmarking college and career readiness standards to 21st
century learning and international standards. Thought is being given to how 21st century skills
should be incorporated into college and career readiness standards, though there is no research to
indicate how successful these ideas will be in practice. (Partnership for 21st Century, 2010;
Silva, 2008).
Resources – Benchmarking College and Career Readiness
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2010). Up to the challenge: The role of career and technical
education and 21st century skills in college and career readiness. Partnership for 21st Century
Skills, Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/documents/CTE_Oct2010.pdf.
This report highlights the demand for skills in the global economy and the ways in which
educators can meet this demand by drawing on both career and technical education and the
Partnership for 21st Century Skills' Framework for 21st Century Learning. Twenty-first century
skills and career and technical education are essential in every state, district and school
23 committed to college and career readiness for all students.
Silva, E. (2008). Measuring skills for the 21st century. Education Sector Reports. Education
Sector, Retrieved from
http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/MeasuringSkills.pdf.
Leaders in government, business, and higher education are calling for today's students to show a
mastery of broader and more sophisticated skills like evaluating and analyzing information and
thinking creatively about how to solve real-world problems. Standing in the way of
incorporating such skills into teaching and learning are widespread concerns about
measurement. In this report, Senior Policy Analyst Elena Silva examines new models of
assessment that illustrate that the skills that really matter for the 21st century can be measured
accurately and in a common and comparable way. New assessments such as the College Work
and Readiness Assessment (CWRA), used at St. Andrew's School in Middletown, Delaware,
illustrate that the ability to think creatively and to evaluate and analyze information can be
measured accurately and in a common and comparable way. The CWRA and other emergent
models demonstrate the potential to measure complex thinking skills at the same time as a
student's mastery of core content or basic skills and knowledge. There is, advocates the author,
no need for more tests to measure advanced skills. Rather, there is a need for better tests that
measure more of the skills students' need to succeed today. (Abstract by ERIC )
Resources – K-12 Career Development
Hughes, K.L., & Karp, M.M. (2004). School-based career development: A synthesis of the
literature. Institute on Education and the Economy, Columbia University, Retrieved from
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/iee/PAPERS/CareerDevelopment02_04.pdf.
This synthesis of the research literature, covering meta-analyses and individual studies on
comprehensive guidance programs, career courses, counseling interventions and computerassisted career guidance, finds many benefits to students of career guidance and academic
counseling interventions. On a variety of career-related and academic measures, student subjects
did have increased outcomes. However, there are also limitations to the interventions and to the
research methods studying them. Many of the interventions are short-term, low-dosage
activities, with lasting benefits unclear. In addition, much of the research relies on self-reported
responses to psychological inventories. Based on the findings of the research review,
recommendations are to focus practice and research on middle-school students, and target
resources towards ensuring that all middle- and high-school students have regular conferences
with counselors to discuss their current and future academic programs. Finally, research should
focus on exploring the relationships between guidance interventions and positive student
24 behaviors, rather than attitudes. (Contains a Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling
Bibliography.)
This response was prepared under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-06-CO0021, by Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia, administered by CNA. The content of the response does not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
25 Assessment Research
Identifying and Sharing Balanced Assessments
Recent state and federal policy initiatives have placed significant national attention on student
assessment scores as indicators of both student achievement and teacher effectiveness. Achieve,
Inc. and other non-profit advocacy groups have encouraged the development of high quality
assessments grounded in research. Self-published assessment resources from Achieve are
available at http://www.achieve.org/assessments-0. Such assessments include multiple measures
of achievement and interim assessments throughout the year (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2010;
Perie, et al., 2007).
Developers of the “next generation” of assessments often look to standards from various states,
new innovations, and international benchmarks (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2010). Achieve, the
Data Quality Campaign, and other advocates stress the need for analyses enabled by state-level
longitudinal data systems that cover a range of indicators, including information on individual
student progression and readiness for college and careers. These data elements, they argue,
should comprise assessments in order to give educators and policymakers an accurate view of
educational quality and achievement (Smith, n.d.). Research in all these areas continues to
develop, both in Virginia and across the country, as many other states adopt common
assessments.
Resources – Balanced Assessments
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them unless otherwise noted.
Darling-Hammond, L., Pecheone, R., Jacquith, A., et al. (2010). Developing an internationally
comparable balanced assessment system that supports high-quality learning. Paper presented to
the National Conference of Next Generation Assessment Systems. Center for K-12 Assessment
and Performance Management, Educational Testing Service. Retrieved July 19, 2011 from
http://k-12center.com/rsc/pdf/Darling-HammondPechoneSystemModel.pdf.
Contemporary efforts to create a set of Common Core Standards in the United States have been
grounded in a desire to create more internationally competitive expectations by benchmarking
learning objectives to those in high‐performing nations abroad. Over the last two decades, all 50
states have developed standards for learning and tests to evaluate student progress. No Child Left
Behind reinforced using test‐based accountability to raise achievement, yet the United States has
fallen further behind on international assessments of student learning since the law was passed in
2001.
26 Smith, N. (n.d.). Next generation state data system: What is needed to support the next
generation assessment and accountability systems. Achieve, Inc. Retrieved July 20, 2011 from
http://www.achieve.org/files/RobustStateDataSystem.pdf.
In order for the next generation of assessment and accountability systems to include much
broader information about students’ academic and performance histories than they currently do,
state data systems will need to expand to include more student information. Currently, state
education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) in most states maintain separate
student-level data systems that are each designed to meet their own reporting requirements. In
order to contemplate how to create or transition to a state-level next generation system, we need
to evaluate how current systems are organized.
State-Supported Access to Assessments, Curriculum, and Statistical Analysis
and Reporting Tools
Lang and colleagues examine the effect of data use and the potential influence of data reporting
requirements on student learning outcomes. In addition to this article, the reader may be
interested in accessing the data and visualization tools available through the National Center for
Education Statistics online at http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/.
We were not able to identify existing research on the effects of sharing information across
schools. Kentucky, however, recently initiated its Continuous Instructional Improvement
Technology System
(http://www.education.ky.gov/kde/instructional+resources/curriculum+documents+and+resource
s/continuous+instructional+improvement+technology+system+(ciits).htm). The development of
this initiative could be of interest as future evaluation results become available.
Measuring Student Growth and the Growth of English Language Learners
An extensive literature has developed in recent years concerning growth models of student
achievement. Here, we provide an introductory piece considering the role of scaling student
scores to enable “consistent interpretation over time” (Briggs, Weeks, and Wiley, 2008).
Recent research on growth indicators for English language learners (ELLs) often leads to
discussions on perceived needs by researchers for the development of assessments that can a)
predict the indicators on which English language instructors should most focus in order to
encourage student growth or b) evaluate ELLs in a way that recognizes their baseline language
skills as a basis for evaluation of growth over an academic year (Kieffer, 2008 and Durán, 2008).
Briggs, D., Weeks, J., and Wiley, E. (2008). Vertical scaling in value-added models for student
learning. Paper presented to the National Conference on Value-Added Modeling, University of
Wisconsin at Madison. Retrieved July 19, 2011 from
27 http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lpo/dateproject/lm3/resources/DerekBriggs_EdWiley_JonathanWeeks
-PAPER-vertical_scaling_in_va_models.pdf.
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the sensitivity of growth and value-added modeling
results to the way an underlying vertical scale has been established. We accomplish this by
analyzing longitudinal item-level data with both student and school-level identifiers over time in
the state of Colorado. We use this data to address two principal research questions:
1. What is the sensitivity of a longitudinal score scale to the way the test scores have been
vertically scaled?
2. What impact do different IRT-based vertical scaling approaches have on
a. projections of growth in student achievement?
b. estimates of value-added school effects?
The basic strategy taken here is to create different vertical scales on the basis of choices made for
three key variables: IRT modeling approach, calibration approach and student proficiency
estimation approach. Combinations of among these three variables leads to eight different
vertical scales. Each scale represents a methodological approach that is in some sense defensible.
Of interest at this stage are potential differences in means and standard deviations among the
different vertical scales from year to year. We next use the longitudinal values of each scale as
the outcome variable in two linear mixed effects models: a three level hierarchical linear model
(Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) and the layered model (Sanders, Saxton & Horn, 1997; McCaffrey
et al., 2004). Of interest at this stage are comparisons among the different fixed effect estimates
of growth, empirical Bayes estimates of student and school-level growth, and empirical Bayes
estimates of school-level “effects” by grade/year combination. Our findings suggest that both
growth projections and value-added estimates may in fact be quite sensitive to choices made in
the development of a vertical scale.
This response was prepared under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-06-CO0021, by Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia, administered by CNA. The content of the response does not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
28 Instructional Delivery Research
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
Teachers who access frequent, intensive professional development may teach more effectively,
yet most professional development is in frequent, superficial, and disconnected from subject area
and individual problems of practice (Little, 2006). The professional learning community (PLC)
model of professional development delivery is designed to enable educators to engage in high
quality, high relevance learning experiences on a frequent basis (Vescio, et al, 2006). PLCs
generally exhibit five attributes (Hord, 1997):

supportive and shared leadership,

collective learning,

shared values and vision,

supportive conditions, and

shared personal practice.
PLCs have gained popularity as a means for improving instruction and professionalism (DuFour,
2004).
Resources – Professional Learning Communities
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them unless otherwise noted.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a "Professional Learning Community?", Educational Leadership,
61(8), 6-11. Retrieved from
http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/secondary_reading/el200405_dufour.html.
The professional learning community model has now reached a critical juncture, one well known
to those who have witnessed the fate of other well-intentioned school reform efforts. In this alltoo-familiar cycle, initial enthusiasm gives way to confusion about the fundamental concepts
driving the initiative, followed by inevitable implementation problems, the conclusion that the
reform has failed to bring about the desired results, abandonment of the reform, and the launch
of a new search for the next promising initiative. Another reform movement has come and gone,
reinforcing the conventional education wisdom that promises, "This too shall pass."
The movement to develop professional learning communities can avoid this cycle, but only if
educators reflect critically on the concept's merits. What are the "big ideas" that represent the
core principles of professional learning communities? How do these principles guide schools'
29 efforts to sustain the professional learning community model until it becomes deeply embedded
in the culture of the school?
Hord, S.M. (1997). Professional learning communities: What are they and why are they
important? Issues ... about Change, 6(1), 1-8. Retrieved from
http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues61/Issues_Vol6_No1_1997.pdf.
This paper focuses on what Astuto and colleagues (1993) label the professional community of
learners, in which the teachers in a school and its administrators continuously seek and share
learning and then act on what they learn. The goal of their actions is to enhance their
effectiveness as professionals so that students benefit. This arrangement has also been termed
communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. As an organizational arrangement, the
professional learning community is seen as a powerful staff development approach and a potent
strategy for school change and improvement. Thus, persons at all levels of the educational
system concerned about school improvement - state department personnel, intermediate service
agency staff, district and campus administrators, teacher leaders, key parents and local school
community members - should find this paper of interest. This paper represents an abbreviation
of Hord's review of the literature (1997), which explored the concept and operationalization of
professional learning communities and their outcomes for staff and students.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2006). A review of research on professional learning
communities: What do we know? Proceedings form National School Reform Faculty Research
Forum. Retrieved from http://www.nsrfharmony.org/research.vescio_ross_adams.pdf.
Over the past twenty years there has been a paradigm shift gathering momentum with regard to
the professional development of teachers. Fueled by the complexities of teaching and learning
within a climate of increasing accountability, this reform moves professional development
beyond merely supporting the acquisition of new knowledge and skills for teachers. In their
article on policies that support professional development, Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin
(1995) write, “The vision of practice that underlies the nation’s reform agenda requires most
teachers to rethink their own practice, to construct new classroom roles and expectations about
student outcomes, and to teach in ways they have never taught before” (para 1). Darling
Hammond and McLaughlin go on to note that helping teachers rethink practice necessitates
professional development that involves teachers in the dual capacities of both teaching and
learning and creates new visions of what, when, and how teachers should learn. This most recent
model of professional development ultimately requires a fundamental change in the institutional
structures that have governed schooling as it has traditionally existed.
Formative Assessment
30 Summative assessment is used to determine students’ knowledge at a single point in time,
typically at the end of an instructional unit or course. In contrast, formative assessment is part of
the instructional process and helps tailor lessons to individual students’ needs (Garrison &
Ehringhaus, n.d.). Research indicates that effective formative assessment can generate substantial
learning gains, especially when it actively develops students’ self-assessment capabilities (Black
& William, 1998).
Online and Blended Coursework
Online and blended/hybrid instruction courses can potentially reduce the cost of instruction while
raising student achievement. A comprehensive meta-analysis of research literature conducted by
the U.S. Department of Education found that online and blended/hybrid instruction are at least as
effective as, and in some cases more effective than, traditional, face-to-face instruction (Bakia, et
al., 2010).
Resources – Online and Blended Coursework
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them unless otherwise noted.
Bakia., M, Means, B., Murphy, R., Toyama, Y., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
A systematic search of the research literature from 1996 through July 2008 identified more than
a thousand empirical studies of online learning. Analysts screened these studies to find those
that (a) contrasted an online to a face-to-face condition, (b) measured student learning outcomes,
(c) used a rigorous research design, and (d) provided adequate information to calculate an effect
size. As a result of this screening, 50 independent effects were identified that could be subjected
to meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning
conditions performed modestly better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. The
difference between student outcomes for online and face-to-face classes—measured as the
difference between treatment and control means, divided by the pooled standard deviation—was
larger in those studies contrasting conditions that blended elements of online and face-to-face
instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face. Analysts noted that these blended
conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by
students in control conditions. This finding suggests that the positive effects associated with
blended learning should not be attributed to the media, per se. An unexpected finding was the
small number of rigorous published studies contrasting online and face-to-face learning
conditions for K–12 students. In light of this small corpus, caution is required in generalizing to
31 the K–12 population because the results are derived for the most part from studies in other
settings (e.g., medical training, higher education).
School Year Length
Nearly all states mandate a minimum of 175-180 instruction days (or equivalent hours) during
the school year. A small number of schools and districts provide additional instructional days
(Dixon, 2011; Marcotte & Hansen, 2010). Research using variations in school year created by
adverse weather suggests that additional instructional days have a statistically significant, though
small, positive effect on test scores.
A secondary body of research suggests that instructional time is more important than
instructional days because additional school days do not necessarily result in additional learning
time.
REL Appalachia prepared a Reference Desk response on this topic that can be accessed at this
URL: http://www.cna.org/centers/education/rel/tech-assistance/reference-desk/2011-03-04. The
resources cited in the Reference Desk response are listed below.
Resources – School Year Length
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them unless otherwise noted.
Dixon, A. (2011). Focus on the alternative school calendar: Year-round school programs and
update on the four-day school week. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2011/11S01_Alt_Cal.pdf.
With renewed focus at the state and federal level on reforming education and increasing student
learning, state policy-makers also are looking for more creative ways to arrange the instructional
school year. The concept of altering the traditional school calendar is not new, but few schools
and districts across the country have embraced the idea. Those that have chosen alternative
calendars typically have similar reasons, including raising student achievement, reducing the
achievement gap among groups of students, saving money, and decreasing school overcrowding.
Fitzpatrick, M., Grissmer, D., and Hastedt, S. (2010). What a difference a day makes: Estimating
daily learning gains during kindergarten and first grade using a natural experiment. Economics of
Education Review. Article in press. Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB9-514Y2FN1&_user=10&.
32 Knowing whether time spent in formal schooling increases student achievement, and by how
much, is important for policymakers interested in determining efficient use of resources. Using
the ECLS-K, we exploit quasi-randomness in the timing of assessment dates to examine this
question. Conservative estimates suggest a year of school results in gains of about one standard
deviation above normal developmental gains in both reading and math test scores. The results are
statistically significant and extremely robust to specification choice, supporting quasirandomness of test dates. Estimates of skill accumulation due to formal schooling do not vary
based on socioeconomic characteristics.
Marcotte, D. and Hemelt, S. (2007). Unscheduled school closings and student performance, IZA
Discussion Paper No. 2923. Retrieved from: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2923.pdf.
Do students perform better on statewide assessments in years in which they have more school
days to prepare? We explore this question using data on math and reading assessments taken by
students in the 3rd, 5th and 8th grades since 1994 in Maryland. Our identification strategy is
rooted in the fact that tests are administered on the same day(s) statewide in late winter or early
spring, and any unscheduled closings due to snow reduce instruction time, and are not made up
until after the exams are over. We estimate that in academic years with an average number of
unscheduled closures (5), the number of 3rd graders performing satisfactorily on state reading
and math assessments within a school is nearly 3 percent lower than in years with no school
closings. The impacts of closure are smaller for students in 5th and 8th grade. Combining our
estimates with actual patterns of unscheduled closings in the last 3 years, we find that more than
half of schools failing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in 3rd grade math or reading,
required under No Child Left Behind, would have met AYP if schools had been open on all
scheduled days.
Smith, B. (2002). Quantity matters: Annual instructional time in an urban school system.
Education Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 652-682. Retrieved from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/recordDetails.jsp?.
This article shares a series of instructional time analyses to illustrate how school management,
social and cultural welfare programs, high-stakes testing, system policies, and a flawed notion of
organizational efficiency combine to cripple enormous blocks of annual instructional time in a
large urban district. Data analyzed were classroom observation records, field notes, teacher
interviews, school calendars, and system documents. School trends that fragment and erode
instructional time and reformers’ reluctance to rethink instructional time are discussed. In
closing, administrators are urged to view the allocation and management of time as one of their
most important and powerful functions, and actions to recover instructional time for teachers and
students are outlined.
33 School Day Scheduling
Schools may structure the 180-day school year in a number of ways. Most districts conduct the
school year from fall to spring, with an 8-10 week summer break, while a small number of
districts and individual schools within districts break the school year up into quarters punctuated
by 1-2 week “intercessions” (Dixon, 2011).
Many states and districts face revenue shortfalls as a result of the housing market crash and
subsequent economic downturn and are considering implement 4-day school weeks as a costsaving measure. Four-day weeks may contribute to decreased teacher and student absenteeism,
improved student and teacher morale, reduced disciplinary infractions, and gains in student
achievement (Dixon, 2011). Analyses indicate that realized cost savings as a result of reducing
the school week range from 0.4% to 5.43% (Griffith, 2011)
REL Appalachia prepared a Reference Desk response on block scheduling that can be accessed
at this URL: http://www.cna.org/centers/education/rel/tech-assistance/reference-desk/2011-0314. Some resources cited in the Reference Desk response are listed below. The author of the
response found that:
An existing literature review and our own search identified several advantages and drawbacks
associated with block schedules. Frequently, studies have found mixed results and even
conflicting outcomes. Unintended consequences of block schedules identified in research include
lower academic performance and more challenges managing student behavior relative to
traditional schedules, though improved academics and behavior have also been observed. The
literature review by Zepeda and Mayers (2006) suggests that the mixed results could be due to
inconsistent implementation of block scheduling practices and limitations of research designs.
Resources – School Day Scheduling
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them.
Griffith, M. (2011). What savings are produced by moving to a four-day school week? Denver,
CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/93/69/9369.pdf.
Due to the current economic downturn, policymakers have been looking for budgetary options
that allow for reductions in expenditures without impacting student achievement. One costcutting policy that some states and districts have adopted is to keep instructional time the same
but shorten the school week. A recent policy brief from ECS found that approximately 120
districts in 17 states have made the move to a four-day school week. But the question still exists
— what cost savings, if any, are produced? This report shows what savings a district might
34 realistically expect to realize when moving to a four-day week.
Dixon, A. (2011). Focus on the alternative school calendar: Year-round school programs and
update on the four-day school week. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Retrieved from http://publications.sreb.org/2011/11S01_Alt_Cal.pdf.
With renewed focus at the state and federal level on reforming education and increasing student
learning, state policy-makers also are looking for more creative ways to arrange the instructional
school year. The concept of altering the traditional school calendar is not new, but few schools
and districts across the country have embraced the idea. Those that have chosen alternative
calendars typically have similar reasons, including raising student achievement, reducing the
achievement gap among groups of students, saving money, and decreasing school overcrowding.
Khazzaka, J. (1998). Comparing the merits of a seven period school day to those of a four period
school day, High School Journal, 81(2), 87-97. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364699.
The 50 minute class period seems to offer insufficient time for students to learn school subjects
in depth, resulting in truancy, discipline problems, and low academic performance. In response,
block scheduling is promoted as an alternative to improve student attendance, discipline, and
performance. This study analyzes records of six secondary schools that switched from traditional
to block scheduling, to compare the merits of each. The study also surveys students, teachers,
parents, and administrators to determine their attitudes toward both types of scheduling. Results
seem to favor block scheduling.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994). Prisoners of time: Report of the
National Education Commission on time and learning. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov, ED489343.
This revised edition of "Prisoners of Time" is designed to refocus attention on the critical issue
of using time as a resource for teaching and learning. It contains the same text as the original
report but also includes some up-to-date examples of the creative and productive ways in which
schools can use time. State and local education leaders are called upon to take on this agenda as
an important opportunity to improve student learning across a broad range of skills-and thus the
economic and civic strength of the country. Appended are: (1) Members of the National
Education Commission on Time and Learning; (2) Letter of Transmittal; (3) Acknowledgments;
and (4) Glossary.
Response to Intervention
35 A primer on Response to Intervention (RTI) prepared by the National Association of School
Psychologists is available for download at this URL:
http://www.nasponline.org/resources/handouts/revisedPDFs/rtiprimer.pdf. Further, the What
Works Clearinghouse at USED has two practice guides devoted to implementing RTI in math
and English. These guides summarize the most rigorous research related to pressing problems in
education today. See http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.
Resources – Response to Intervention
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them.
Klotz, M. B. (2006). Response to Intervention (RTI): A primer for parents. Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved from
http://www.nasponline.org/resources/handouts/revisedPDFs/rtiprimer.pdf.
A major concern for parents as well as teachers is how to help children who experience difficulty
in school. All parents want to see their child excel, and it can be very frustrating when a child
falls behind in either learning to read, achieving as expected in math and other subjects, or
getting along socially with peers and teachers. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-step
approach to providing services and interventions to struggling learners at increasing levels of
intensity. RTI allows for early intervention by providing academic and behavioral supports rather
than waiting for a child to fail before offering help.
This response was prepared under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-06-CO0021, by Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia, administered by CNA. The content of the response does not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
36 Human Capital Research
Recruitment and Retention
Both recruitment of new teachers and retention of current teachers (either within a specific
school or within the profession in general) are challenges to developing an effective teacher
workforce. There are many motivating factors for teachers who choose to change schools or
professions, including salary (Ingersoll and Perda, 2009). For teachers who remain in the
profession, again salary is one of many motivators, but often not the main motivator (DarlingHammond, 2006). Further, some researchers argue that the overall incentive structure for
educators is “fragmented and uncoordinated,” resulting in piecemeal policies that may not
systematically form a coherent plan for salaries and benefits (Podgursky and Springer, 2011).
Resources – Recruitment and Retention
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them unless otherwise noted.
Ingersoll, R.M., and Perda, D. (2009). The mathematics and science teacher shortage: Fact and
myth. CPRE Research Report #RR-62 The Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved
July 19, 2011 from
https://www.csun.edu/science/courses/710/bibliography/math%20science%20shortage
%20paper%20march%202009%20final.pdf.
The objective of this study is to empirically reexamine the issue of mathematics and science teacher
shortages and to evaluate the extent to which there is a supply-side deficit—a shortage—of new
teachers in these particular fields. The data utilized in this investigation are from three sources—the
Schools and Staffing Survey and its supplement, the Teacher Follow-Up Survey; the Integrated
Postsecondary Educational Data System; and the Baccalaureate and Beyond Survey, all conducted
by the National Center for Education Statistics.
The data show that there are indeed widespread school staffing problems—that is, many schools
experience difficulties filling their classrooms with qualified candidates, especially in the fields of
math and science. But, contrary to conventional wisdom, the data also show that these school
staffing problems are not solely, or even primarily, due to shortages in the sense that too few new
mathematics and science teachers are produced each year.
Podgursky, M., and Springer, M. (2011). Teacher compensation systems in the United States K-12
public school system, National Tax Journal, 64 (1), 165–192. Retrieved July 19, 2011 from
http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/009a9a91c225e83d852567ed006212d8/a03692bdaadff66f8525784
e007713ce/$FILE/A07-Springer.pdf.
37 This paper provides a review of the current teacher compensation system and examines the structure
of teacher compensation in the U.S. K-12 public education system. Teacher salaries are largely set
by schedules that are neither performance-related nor market-driven, and have significant
consequences on school staffing and workforce quality. The second section summarizes the recent
literature on compensation reform, with an emphasis on studies using experimental or quasiexperimental designs to evaluate the impact of programs on student achievement and teacher
outcomes. A final section offers observations on prospects for future research and reforms.
Educator Evaluation: Student Achievement and Pay for Performance
There are many resources that discuss the merits of including student achievement in teacher
evaluation systems, as well as the benefits and risks associated with teacher merit pay. In
general, research is inconclusive about whether or how student performance should be used in
teacher evaluations. Most research suggests that student performance can be effectively included
as a part of teacher evaluation, but not as a sole source of data (Goldhaber and Hansen, 2010).
Further, research suggests using such student achievement scores to inform professional
development and placement of teachers rather than as a high-stakes evaluation, though some
researchers do suggest deselection of teachers based on students’ scores as an option (Hanushek,
2009). There are many programs in place around the country that offer merit pay or pay-forperformance to teachers, though research on the subject is rather immature (Hulleman and
Barron, 2010; Podgursky and Springer, 2011). Again, research on this practice is inconclusive,
showing positive outcomes in some cases and not in others (Koppich and Rigby, 2009).
Resources – Educator evaluation: Student Achievement and Pay for
Performance
Education Commission of the States. (2010).Teacher merit pay: What do we know?, The
Progress of Education Reform, 11, 1-4. Retrieved July 19, 2011 from
http://ecs.org/clearinghouse/86/40/8640.pdf.
Merit pay programs for educators — sometimes referred to a “pay for performance” — attempt
to tie a teacher’s compensation to his/her performance in the classroom. While the idea of merit
pay for classroom teachers has been around for several decades, only now is it starting to be
implemented in a growing number of districts around the country. One example of the increased
interest for merit pay systems can be seen in the recent increased funding level for the federal
Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF). The TIF program, which is run through the United States
Department of Education (USDOE), provides funding to school districts to help them implement
merit pay systems. The USDOE has increased funding for the TIF program this year by more
than four-fold — from $97.3 million to $437 million. But with all of this increased interest and
funding for merit pay programs — what if anything do we know about the costs versus the
benefits of these systems?
38 Hanushek, E.A. (2009). Teacher deselection, in Creating a New Teaching Profession, ed. D.
Goldhaber and J. Hannaway, 165–80. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Retrieved July 19,
2011 from http://leadingmatters.stanford.edu/san_francisco/documents/Teacher_DeselectionHanushek.pdf.
This discussion provides a quantitative statement of one approach to achieving the governors’
(and the nation’s) goals – teacher deselection. Specifically, how much progress in student
achievement could be accomplished by instituting a program of removing, or deselecting, the
least effective teachers? A variety of policies for hiring and retraining teachers have been
proposed, but they are not been very successful in the aggregate as student performance has not
improved. At the same time, it is widely recognized that some teachers do a very poor job, and
few people believe that the worst teachers can be transformed into good teachers. What would
happen if we simply adopted policies of systematically removing the worst teachers?
Professional Development
Barriers exist to educators using technology, both as a learning platform or teaching platform
(Butler and Sellbom, 2002). However, using technology, especially online tools, shows promise
as an approach to professional development (Kaliban, 2004; Polly and Hannafin, 2010). Further,
professional development can help educators overcome barriers associated with technology use,
which in turn can facilitate students’ use of technology in the classroom (Brinkerhoff, 2006;
Polly and Hannafin, 2010).
Resources – Professional Development
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them unless otherwise noted.
Kabilan, M.K. (2004-2005). Online professional development: A literature analysis of teacher
competency, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(2), 51-57. Retrieved July 19, 2011
from ERIC.
Findings from research indicate that teachers participating in online professional development
(OPD) activities and programs have gained, in some way or another, a great deal of teacher
competency. In spite of this, no research has been undertaken to systematically identify and
acknowledge the types of teacher competencies that are frequently associated with and attributed
to OPD. This paper, based on findings from other studies and literature reviews, attempts to
initiate and explore the above vacuum. A literature analysis, using a simple tool based on the
coding strategies, is used to categorize the types or aspects of teacher competencies that were
evident. The results indicate five major aspects: (1) motivation; (2) skills, knowledge and ideas;
(3) self-directed learning; (4) interactive competence; and (5) computer technology awareness
and skills.
39 Polly, D. and Hannafin, M.J. (2010). Reexamining technology’s role in learner-centered
professional development, Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 557-571.
The American Psychological Association’s “Learner-centered Principles” provides empiricallybased approaches to improving teaching and learning. However, in order to facilitate learnercentered, technology-rich instruction to K-12 students, teachers must be afforded opportunities
to develop key understandings and skills, rarely evident in most professional development
programs. In this paper, we synthesize empirically-based studies and recommendations for
teacher learning and propose a learner-centered professional development (LCPD) framework to
guide both professional development and empirical work on teacher learning. We describe
LCPD components, discuss ways that technology can support LCPD, and highlight implications
for research and practice.
This response was prepared under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-06-CO0021, by Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia, administered by CNA. The content of the response does not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
40 State’s Role in Funding Public Education Research
Funding Public Education
School finance equity is a complex problem in the funding of public education. There are several
models for state funding formulas: Foundation/Base, Modified Foundation/Base formula,
Teacher Allocation, Dollar Funding per Student (Checkley, 2008). Virginia has a modified
foundation/base formula for funding public education. This funding method provides for a basefunding amount that is multiplied by a weight for each student depending on the perceived level
of the student’s educational needs (e.g., special education, English Language Learner or at-risk
programs), and the foundation dollar amount varies from district to district (Griffith, 2005).
Equity in school funding has two dimensions. Horizontal equity is when school districts
considered to be similar to each other have comparable levels of funding. Similarity is based on
wealth, size, socioeconomic status, and other dimensions related to the cost of providing
education. Horizontal equity relies on equal treatment of schools (Toutkoushian & Michael,
2007b). Vertical equity is when school districts with higher costs of educating student
populations receive more funding than their counterparts to compensate for this difference.
Vertical equity relies on unequal treatment of unequals. Modifications to State Funding Formulas
Changes in state funding formulas, referred to as overlay provisions, are often made to improve
equity across schools vertically and/or horizontally. These provisions are formulas that take into
account factors such as total revenues based on the foundation grant, current enrollment, and
year to year changes in revenue. It has been only recently that the effect of overlay provisions on
equity and adequacy has been studied in a systematic way. Toutkoushian & Michael (2007a,
2008) looked extensively at overlay provisions enacted by Indiana in 2005 with a funding
formula that is foundation/base. The provisions were designed to help protect districts from large
revenue changes (mostly declines). They found that the overlay provisions in Indiana
“contributed significantly to horizontal and vertical inequity in funding.” Michael, Spradlin &
Carson (2009) also examined recently enacted funding formulas in Indiana which placed upper
and lower limits on the amount the foundation generates. They observed that horizontal equity
decreased when limits were imposed, while there was minimal effect on vertical equity.
Looking at state aid formulas in Massachusetts (a foundation/base formula) from 2004 to 2009,
Fahy (2011) found that “required spending varies by student characteristics only when
community factors are held constant” (e.g. community wealth, regional districts, etc.) and the
likelihood of a district benefiting from aid modifications increases for wealthier communities,
regional school districts, and districts with high proportions of low income elementary school
students and lower enrollment districts.
41 Wang Ko (2006) examined the effects of state policy on equity in Missouri from 1991 to 1999.
He found that overall school finance equity increased as total revenue, state and local revenue,
and current expenditures increased. Wang Ko also found that equity took a downturn in 1997-98.
It was suggested this downturn could be a result of either additional grant monies from other
sources (e.g., incentive grants, A+ grants and teacher grants) or shifts in state policy from equity
to adequacy.
Increasing state aid might have unintended consequences, as Driscoll and Solomon (2008) found
in Virginia. In response to increases in state funding in 2003 to 2005, some local governing
agencies used the increase in state aid for local tax relief. These districts were most likely to be
administered by county governments and possess low fiscal capacity, low fiscal effort, high
percent free and reduced lunch counts and low adjusted state and local per-pupil expenditures. Resources – Modifications to State Funding Formulas
The following abstracts and summaries were taken verbatim from the online academic,
government, or public databases from which we obtained them.
Driscoll, L.G., & Salmon, R.G. (2008). How increased state equalization aid resulted in greater
disparities: An unexpected consequence for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Journal of
Education Finance, 33(3), 238-261. http://0www.eric.ed.gov.novacat.nova.edu/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERIC
ExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ781681&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ781681
Two years ago a fiscal equity analysis assessed the current Virginia equalization formula over its
history (fiscal year 1975-fiscal year 2003). The findings indicated by accepted equity statistics
were that the level of equity improved from fiscal year 1975 through fiscal year 1994 and leveled
off from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. Between fiscal years 2003 and 2005, a
bipartisan effort increased the state funding for public elementary and secondary education by
$755 million, or nearly 18% over the previous biennium. Usually when the state assumes a
greater fiscal responsibility for funding its public schools, a higher level of fiscal equity is the
result. Why then did the equity statistics in Virginia fall precipitously between fiscal years 2003
and 2005? It appeared that some local school districts--actually the local governing agencies-have used the increased state aid for local tax relief. Districts that decreased or level-funded their
budgets were more likely to be administered by county governments and possess low fiscal
capacity, low fiscal effort, high-percent free and reduced lunch counts, and low adjusted state
and local per-pupil expenditures.
Fahy, C. (2011). Education funding in Massachusetts: The effects of aid modifications on
vertical and horizontal equity. Journal of Education Finance, 36(3), 217-243. http://0www.eric.ed.gov.novacat.nova.edu/ERICWebPortal/search/recordDetails.jsp?ERICExtSearch_D
42 escriptor=%22Program+Costs%22&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&accno=EJ917864&_nfls=false
Public school funding in Massachusetts is based on foundation budget principles. However,
funding formula modifications often create disparities between district foundation budgets and
actual required spending levels. This study provides an in-depth look at Massachusetts' state aid
formulas used between 2004 and 2009 and utilizes two approaches to measure the effects of aid
modifications on vertical and horizontal equity. The first is a regression-based approach which
compares the intended effects of student characteristics on foundation spending to the actual
effects on required spending. The second approach measures equity directly for each school
district and uses the Tobit estimation technique to examine the effects of student and district
characteristics on the equity measure. Results indicate that district characteristics such as
community wealth and regional school systems increase the likelihood of a district benefiting
from aid modifications. Holding community characteristics constant, there is also evidence that
districts with high proportions of low income elementary school students and/or English
language learners benefit from overlay provisions as well.
This response was prepared under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-06-CO0021, by Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia, administered by CNA. The content of the response does not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
Fiscally Independent School Boards
According to the National Association of State Boards of Education, Virginia is one of nine
states in the country with fiscally dependent school boards. Thirty-four states have autonomous
boards and twenty-six states allow districts to have taking authority if they choose [statistic
provided by VEA].
43